Some time back, retired Brazilian football star Ronaldo Nazario recommended that assuming the FIFA World Cup competition is held every two years, it will be extremely beneficial in differing ways to both the players and the coordinators of the tournament.
Obviously, some couple of players favored him, whilst other disagreed with him. This same issue has gone round and has returned on the table for a discussion. Delegates at FIFA’s global summit have been informed that, a biennial World Cup would generate in excess of $4.4 billion in income over a four-year cycle.
The world football’s administering body now wants to have a World Cup held every two years (clockwork) rather than four, as the international match calendars for womens’ and men’s football are set to end in 2023 and 2024 respectively.
South American football’s governing body CONMEBOL and European soccer association UEFA, which is promoting an extended Champions League format, go against FIFA’s proposition. Meanwhile, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) has given FIFA its support.
On Monday December 20, FIFA said the monetary projections depend on two free feasibility studies, which were presented at an online meeting attended by 207 out of 210 eligible member associations.
Member associations would be given an average of $16 million in extra funds, FIFA said, citing research by Nielson, though it did not give precise details on how finances would be distributed.
A second report by OpenEconomics recommended a transition to a biennial cycle for the men’s world cup would deliver a (GDP) gain of more than $180 billion gain of over 16-year term and create about 2,000,000 full-time jobs.
“Our intention is to help ‘bridge the gap’ between FIFA member associations and to give as many of them a more realistic chance of playing on the global stage,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.
UEFA has released its own research which predicted that revenues for European national associations might drop between €2.5 and €3 billion over a cycle of four years due to losses from media rights ticketing and sponsorships.
A research, led by the consultancy firm Oliver and Ohlbaum, cautioned of the physical and mental cost the new timetable would take on players.
UEFA additionally anticipated womens’ football would experience adverse consequences as far as openness and fans’ and media interest is concerned.